Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12

Simon,

I could not understand how does it make sense for you to refer "TURN" in the
requirement whereas it implies "PCP" or "ICE-TCP" or "TURN over WebSocket"
in the solution.

Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Simon
> Perreault
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 7:48 PM
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
> requirements-12
> 
> Le 2014-01-23 20:13, Parthasarathi R a écrit :
> > Hi Stefan,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for providing the background. We are in the same page
> w.r.t
> > ICE. My concern is w.r.t TURN word usage only. It will be great in
> case
> > "TURN" is replaced with "Firewall traversal" in the below mentioned
> snippet
> > of the draft.
> >
> > <snip>
> > Sec 3.3.4.1
> > the service provider would like to be able to provide several STUN
> and TURN
> > servers (via the app) to the browser;
> >
> > Sec 3.3.5.1
> > It must be possible to configure the browsers used in the enterprise
> with
> > network specific STUN and TURN servers.
> >
> > The RTCWEB functionality will need to utilize both network specific
> STUN and
> > TURN resources and STUN and TURN servers provisioned by the web
> application.
> >
> >
> > Sec 4.2
> >
> >   F31     The browser must be able to use several STUN
> >             and TURN servers
> >     ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >     F32     There browser must support that STUN and TURN
> >             servers to use are supplied by other entities
> >             than via the web application (i.e. the network
> >             provider).
> >     ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Appendix A
> >
> >
> >   A22     The Web API must provide means for the application to
> specify
> > several STUN and/or TURN servers to use.
> > </snip>
> >
> > Also, Could you plese add the statement in the line of that "Firewall
> > traversal mechanism in this document shall be TURN, ICE-TCP, TURN
> over
> > WebSocket, PCP" to provide more clarity.
> 
> FWIW, I would completely disagree with that change. It makes no sense
> to me.
> 
> Simon
> --
> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
> NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
> STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb